Phyllis Hasbrouck: Fitchburg doesn't need more undeveloped land

[The original letter to the editor.  An edited version appeared in the Wisconsin State Journal on 2/25/2013.]

Dear Editor,

Fitchburg Mayor Shawn Pfaff's desire to bring the Northeast Neighborhood into Fitchburg's Urban Service Area (USA) doesn't make sense from a taxpayer's point of view.  His Plan Commission voted on Feb. 19 to instruct staff to create an application to the Capital Area Regional Planning Commission (CARPC).

But Fitchburg already has around 1175 acres of vacant land in its USA waiting to be developed, and its taxpayers are already on the hook to maintain and repair all of that infrastructure as soon as it is installed.  The city leaders are already gambling that this huge area will fill up and provide the increased taxes needed to maintain and service it.  Is this a good time to add another neighborhood's worth of infrastructure to sweep, plow, inspect and repair?

With 15 years' worth of land just waiting for builders and buyers, why extend urban services even farther from the city center? It doesn't take 15 years to jump through the CARPC hoops: more like 6 to 18 months. There is plenty of time to apply when Uptown and the North McGaw area fill up.

Ask the taxpayers of Oregon, Sun Prairie and Stoughton how they like paying to plow streets with just a few houses on them. Developers are risk-takers: when they are skilled or lucky, they get a big payoff.  But the taxpayers shouldn't be forced to bet their hard-earned dollars on such a risky scheme.

On Feb. 26 the Fitchburg Common Council will meet at 7:30 p.m. and decide whether to plow ahead or wait. The taxpayers are invited to contact Mayor Pfaff at shawn.pfaff@city.fitchburg.wi.us and let him know what they want.

Yours,

Phyllis Hasbrouck
Chair, West Waubesa Preservation Coalition

Jay Allen: Say no to leapfrog development in Fitchburg

(Jay Allen, former mayor of Fitchburg and current mayoral candidate)

Many people believe that new development is always good for a community. Some types are good. They add to the tax base, create efficiencies in services, and, in some cases, can actually improve the pre-development environmental conditions.

Other developments may create new tax base, but also create huge drains on municipal services, cause significant environmental damage, and cost taxpayers far more than they provide in tax revenue.

The City of Fitchburg is currently considering a development in the second category. Known as the Northeast Neighborhood, the area is bounded by Highway 14 on the west, Larsen Road on the east, East Clayton Road on the north, and Goodland Park Road and Haight Farm Road on the south. This area is not contiguous to any other development.

Fitchburg has roughly 1200 undeveloped acres within the Central Urban Service Area (CUSA). Those areas have available water and sewer. Almost all are within the a 4-minute response time for the fire department. They are contiguous to current development, so it is efficient to provide other municipal services, like police, trash collection, street maintenance, snow plowing, etc.

The Northeast Neighborhood is not within the CUSA. Fitchburg is considering submitting an application to the Capitol Area Regional Plan Commission (CARPC) to add it. This application should not be submitted, and, if submitted, it should be rejected. Some reasons are as follows:

1) The area is almost ¾ of a mile from the current edge of development. Municipal services will have to travel 1.5 miles round trip across vacant land, at significant cost.

2) The area currently has no water or sewer service. Fitchburg’s Water Utility will have to borrow in excess of $2 million to build those utilities. The area within the CUSA can currently be served with little additional investment. Existing areas should be built before burdening the ratepayers with the cost of new infrastructure.

3) The Northeast Neighborhood is 7 to 12 minutes away from Fire Station #1. This is unacceptable, and people will be endangered. The current mayor has suggested that the City of Madison could potentially cover that area. It seems unlikely that Madison taxpayers would subsidize this service. Current staffing at Madison Fire Station #6 is barely adequate, and an additional crew and an additional engine would be very costly.

4) Fitchburg’s last Urban Service Area amendment was approved in 2010. CARPC was promised that it would be at least 5 years before another request, and that was predicated on significant development occurring. Fewer than 6 buildings are under construction in the 1200 acres available. Reason would expect hundreds of buildings before requesting another amendment.

5) Development of the Northeast Neighborhood poses a significant risk to Lake Waubesa, which already has a eutrification problem. No studies have been done to examine what the effect will be on Lake Waubesa.

6) There is no reason to do this with so much land currently available and a sluggish market.

The major landowner involved is a political supporter of the current mayor. Politics should not play a factor in what should be objective planning decisions. Sacrificing environmental protection and taxpayer money should not happen to reward a political supporter. No reasonable person would support this amendment. I hope that in this case, reason will prevail.

Jay Allen
Former Mayor
City of Fitchburg

Rich Eggleston: Fitchburg development plans overly ambitious

(From a Letter to the Cap Times)

Dear Editor: The guy in the red vest got it wrong. It’s Fitchburg that is truly 35 square miles surrounded by reality.

Our little city is entertaining grandiose plans to develop not one, not two, but four new “neighborhoods” that will house thousands of new residents with whom we, the existing residents, will be expected to share our schools, our roads, and our limited crime and fire-fighting resources.

These starry-eyed development blueprints include:

• The North McGaw neighborhood, a 398-acre tract. The entire McGaw neighborhood, 720 acres, is supposed to provide 1,900 new homes and 2.4 million square feet of commercial space — enough for 13 “big box” stores.

• “Uptown,” 450 acres in northeast Fitchburg, on which construction has already begun on 150 apartments in two buildings.

• The Northeast Neighborhood, which could add 800 to 1,400 new homes

• The North Stoner Prairie neighborhood, 322 acres including some of the best farmland in the world, which is envisioned as mostly industrial, but with a residential component as well, east of Seminole Highway.

This is all very nice. None of these developments is likely to include the kind of ticky-tacky that development entailed in earlier days. But Fitchburg may be biting off more than it can chew.

The comprehensive plan that developers and city officials are using to justify this growth was developed without in-depth consultation with our neighbors on how to manage expected growth. Infrastructure costs money. Despite the best-laid plans, growth inevitably damages the environment. Fitchburg should not seek to bite off more than its rightful share of Dane County’s expected population and economic growth. Doing so puts existing home values, existing neighborhoods and the environment we all cherish at risk. City officials must consider existing residents before being seduced by the sirens of development.

Rich Eggleston

Fitchburg

Read more

Testimony before the Fitchburg Plan Commission, 2/19/13 - Phyllis Hasbrouck

Good evening.  My name is Phyllis Hasbrouck and I'm the chair of the West Waubesa Preservation Coalition. There are so many reasons to oppose this development, and there are so many reasons why a person who supports it would still oppose it at this time.  From a taxpayer's point of view, the most important reason is that it would be bad planning, and it would unnecessarily raise the real estate taxes that homeowners pay, and that renters pay indirectly through higher rents.

As of June 2012, there were already 1175 acres of vacant land within the Fitchburg Urban Service Area.  The largest chunks are Uptown, formerly called Green Tech Village, and North McGaw Neighborhood.  There are only 6 buildings underway in Uptown, and none as far as I know in McGaw, so where's the need for yet more space?

You may ask, "What's the problem with just getting all of our ducks in a row, going through the CARPC process so that when the market is ready, we will be too?"  Well, you've already done that, by bringing in Uptown and North McGaw.  When the market wants to build, you've got areas all ready for single family, multifamily, mixed use, civic, retail, even some industrial.  By your own estimates, you have enough for almost 15 years of expansion.

It doesn't take 15 years to jump through the CARPC hoops.  It's more like six to 18 months.  So why not wait until you think you are 2 years away from filling up Uptown and North McGaw, and then start getting your ducks in a row?

What is the downside to getting ready too soon?  As soon as a developer puts in infrastructure, the city has to spend tax dollars to do all the cleaning, plowing, inspecting and repairing.  By opening up 1175 acres, you've already signed up the taxpayers for a big burden, and it's not clear when the tax base will catch up to the cost of the new services.  So is this a good time to bring in two more neighborhoods' worth of infrastructure?  I say "two more" because Mayor Pfaff also wants to bring in the North Stoner Prairie Neighborhood.

Now, I know that Fitchburg has a much better planning record the Village of Oregon and Sun Prairie, both of which expanded too much, too fast, and were left with largely empty "ghost neighborhoods."   But when you get new staff and new elected leaders, practices can change.  Senior Planner Tom Hovel has done an excellent job of carefully phasing in new developments, but in three years he could be retired, and there's no guarantee that his successor would be as wise.  There are many pressures on staff and commissioners and alders to accommodate powerful and wealthy people who want to build.  It is harder to resist those pressures when the land in question is already in the Urban Service Area.

This environmentally-sensitive piece of excellent farmland should only be considered for development when there is nowhere else to build.  That is clearly not the case now.

Dr. DeWitt's Presentation Posted

As a follow-up to a previous blog, the city has posted Dr. Cal DeWitt's presentation on their website here.

The slide below is my favorite showing the various layers of bedrock deposits in Dane County (top left is north). The two darkest layers are the thickest areas of the Eau Claire formation which comprise the best aquitard separating our upper and lower aquifers. As you can see, much of the county does not benefit from this layer of shale.

Wake Up Dane County!

Last Tuesday night the room was packed for Dr. Cal DeWitt's remarkable presentation which was entertaining, important, and memorable! If you missed it, you might catch the replay on FACTv.

I'm sorry Channel 15 news was unable to record the unveiling of Dr. DeWitt's latest research during his second presentation to the Plan Commission, which unfortunately was delayed for an hour in order to accommodate people there for other agenda items.

Eau Claire Aquitard and Buried Bedrock Valleys

During his presentation, Dr. DeWitt shared his remarkable and eye-opening discoveries, involving over 700 hours of research since his September 2007 presentation to the Plan Commission. He unearthed to the public, the secrets of the hidden bedrock valleys which lay beneath the surface of Fitchburg. The bedrock was created in layers by various sea deposits over millions of years including a series of deposits from the ancient "Eau Claire Sea."

These deposits of mud, silt, and sand form the Eau Claire Formation and it is the shale in this formation that forms a barrier (aquitard) that separates the upper and lower aquifers. Valleys, cutting through this bedrock, make it look much like the rugged, exposed topography of the driftless area to our west. And the Nine Springs bedrock valley cuts completely through the Eau Claire Formation. After these incisions, however, the valleys around here were filled in by the glacier (which also created a fantastic chain of lakes) and they now lie silently below us.

Through research of previous core samples taken from wells, Dr. DeWitt demonstrated that the aquitard is slowly reduced in thickness from Southwest to Northeast Fitchburg, where it thins as it approaches Lake Waubesa and then disappears completely. This results in a joining of upper and lower aquitards, making them one.

In Northeast Fitchburg, east to west along the 9 Springs E-way, and in much of Madison and Sun Prairie, there is a joining of upper and lower aquifers, and this may more fully explain the reason for Madison's many water quality/contamination problems.

Caution is Urged

Dr. DeWitt strongly urged against drilling any new wells in or near areas where the aquitard is lacking and suggested that Fitchburg steward the land by "sleuthing" the science (hydrology, geology, hydrogeology, limnology) of the area carefully in future planning.

He warned against relying on current groundwater models, when considering new development (such as the Northeast Neighborhood). While these models are helpful for many areas where bedrock is fairly uniform, they do not account for the cutting through of the Eau Claire aquitard by the Nine Springs Bedrock Valley or the thinning of the Eau Claire Shale to zero in the northeast.

Other models being used for runoff similarly must be used wisely; and their current use does not adequately address phosphorus loading inputs. He suggested that unless care is taken to prevent the eutrophication of Lake Waubesa, by reducing the phosphorus runoff below levels found in present and future developed neighborhoods, Fitchburg would eventually pay in increased taxes for future remediation to restore the watershed.

Rosanne Lindsay
Fitchburg

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

To the 100 or more people that came to listen to Professor DeWitt's talk (some are pictured above before all the seats were filled!), I’m sorry that the Mayor decided to rearrange the agenda at the last minute. I’m glad that you were able to stay that extra hour and I’m sure you agree that this presentation was worth the wait!

Terry Carpenter
Fitchburg

Surprise Guest Remains a Mystery

This is a longer version of the Letter to the Editor, Capital Times
To be published 1/15/2008

Who could the “Special Guest” be at the top of the agenda? What forwarding-thinking person is Mayor Clauder going to present? I’ve never seen the Mayor so excited about anything. But, then, I’ve mostly seen him at Council or Plan Commission meetings. But wait. This IS a Common Council meeting and he’s still excited about something.

During the Mayor’s melodramatic and “suspenseful” introduction, I can’t help but watch the clock because time is valuable and I came here to observe the Fitchburg Common Council meeting. It’s been 3 minutes and he’s still playing his mystery game. So far, we know it’s connected to the Packers because he unfurled a giant poster containing the familiar helmet. We can also see a green and gold bobble-head doll perched near the Mayor’s seat (which remained in the camera’s view the entire night).

After 5 minutes of introduction, the moment arrived. There was no curtain so special guest John O’Neill appeared out of the wings of FACTv’s offices (affectionately referred to as “tent city” because of the tarps protecting their equipment from a leaky roof). Covered from head to toe in an elaborate green and yellow costume, “Saint Vince” strode across the Council Chambers carrying a staff topped with a cheesehead wedge and took the microphone from our beaming Mayor. O’Neill explained his unusual Packer Fan history including his costume (a tribute to “Saint" Vince Lombardi) and inclusion in the NFL Fan Hall of Fame.

Yes, this really happened and I had the misfortune to witness it for a mind-boggling 20 minutes at the beginning of the Common Council meeting on Jan. 8th.

I don’t think I was the only person to be dazed and confused by this display of Football Fever. I noticed a few other somber or perhaps puzzled faces in the audience. They probably came to express their concerns to about official agenda items. They were made to wait through 20 minutes of sports trivia before the Council could get on with business. I doubt that these concerned citizens appreciated the extra time spent waiting their turn.

I can’t help but wonder why Mayor Clauder believed that this was an appropriate venue for such a guest. Clauder mentioned that Green Bay and Ashwaubegon councils both invited the famous fan. He mentioned that he’s personally known O’Neill for a long time because he lived in Fitchburg for many years. But I still don’t see why Fitchburg needs to follow the lead taken by Green Bay. The two cities are quite different. We don’t even have a stadium much less one filled with Packer fans year after year. I haven’t a clue as to why Ashwaubenon is now setting a precedent for Fitchburg to follow.

Now, before any of you send me hate e-mail for being anti-Packers, I should tell you that “Saint Vince” seems to be having a great time as he raises money for charity by charging people to have their picture taken with him. This is all well and good… in the right time and place. I believe that a Fitchburg City Council meeting is not the right place. And if it were the right place, the priorities around allocation of time are still wrong.

And there’s also the issue of fairness and equity. Many people, including me, find it quite difficult to get more than 3 minutes of face time with the Council or the Plan Commission without being interrupted by “Are you almost done?” But I’m not in the NFL Fan Hall of Fame like O’Neill who had no such problem.

I have to question the priorities because I know that Dr. Cal DeWitt, a UW Professor who has devoted his life to studying and teaching complex ecosystems, was given just 30 minutes to present important research at the Plan Commission meeting Tuesday, Jan. 15th when he could have spent much more time if permitted. Dr. DeWitt has built an international reputation through his involvement with projects and conferences relating to global climate change and other ecological issues. His interdisciplinary experience has allowed him to connect some important dots in Dane County and we need to hear what he has found.

Do you see anything wrong with the judgment over at City Hall when the Mayor can allocate 20 minutes for stories about the Packers while Dr. DeWitt is only allowed 30 minutes for a presentation about the importance of buried bedrock valleys, missing aquitard and how these affect our groundwater system?

I do. Fitchburg’s Council, Committees and Commissions have important work to do. Their decisions impact the daily lives of current and future residents. Although I enjoy the occasional bit of humor at city meetings, wasting 20 minutes on sports trivia is a disservice to our community.

Terry Carpenter
(Disgusted in) Fitchburg

How Will Measures Be Enforced?

Expanded version of Jan. 10, 2008 Letter to Editor, Fitchburg Star
Submitted by Phyllis Hasbrouck
Chair of the West Waubesa Preservation Coaliton

“Just Trust Us”

The main message that I heard from developer Phil Sveum and his team on Dec. 18 was “Just trust us.” They painted a picture of a “green development” in the Northeast Neighborhood, but with no real substance. They are “looking at” encouraging homebuyers to use efficient plumbing fixtures, limit lawn watering, create and maintain raingardens, and use rain barrels. They assure us that when they complete their CDP (comprehensive development plan) it will have measures adequate to protect Lake Waubesa, Swan Creek, the springs and the groundwater.

Should the Plan Commission just take their word for it? How many times have cities been left holding the bag when a stormwater plan went bad? Developers sure are good at sweet talking, but once they finish the project, they are done, and all problems are left to the city.

Can Neighborhood Associations be Depended on?

All of the neighborhood-wide water-saving and stormwater control features of the Sveum plan depend on a Neighborhood Association to carry them out, and that’s a real weakness. It’s hard to find people willing to put in the volunteer hours for the good of the whole neighborhood. Harlan Hills (which was built by Sveum to be an “environmental development”) has a neighborhood association, but it hasn’t stopped people from using the pesticides that Sveum said would be banned. People have mowed down prairie and incorporated pieces into their yards, and concerned residents were told that suing their neighbors is the only way they can get the covenants enforced.

It’s very easy to say, “the outlot raingardens, the repair and plowing of the alleys, and the greenways will all be managed by a dues-collecting neighborhood association,” but the reality may be quite different. A recent Capital Times article talked about the many area residents who buy homes without realizing that their street is private, and that they’ll have to pay for its upkeep. What if new residents of the NEN can’t or won’t keep up the raingardens, alleys and greenways? Will Phil Sveum step in and pay? Will the city? Or will the environment have to pay? I understand that Fitchburg has never allowed private streets. I hope that they stick to their principles when it comes to private allies, greenways, and infiltration features.

What makes anyone believe that the people who move into such a development will be interested in conserving tap water or maintaining raingardens? Congratulations to Commissioner McNally, who brought a sense of reality back to the discussion when he asked whether we could really count on all of these ambitious plans happening!

A Memorandum is not a Promise

The Ruekert-Mielke stormwater report was a list of goals, with no concrete suggestions to describe how the goals would be met. The Montgomery Associates Memorandum on water is a slight improvement. It describes the general sort of techniques that they plan to use, e.g. “providing multiple points of treatment and infiltration of runoff as close to the impervious surfaces as possible.” But we are told to wait until they have a comprehensive development plan to see exactly what kind, how many, and where such measures will be. Can it be that this is the accepted way of approving developments – to just take the say-so of people who have every reason to skimp once they have the approval?

Rob Montgomery, Sveum’s water expert, said “Those [municipal] wells draw water from the lower aquifer relatively isolated from the upper aquifer, and also draw from a wider region of Fitchburg and areas to the west.” People who attend or watch the next Plan Commission meeting at 7 p.m. in City Hall on Jan. 15 will learn that this is not so, when they hear Dr. Cal DeWitt speak on buried bedrock valleys.

The memorandum says that “Water draining off the Par Fore site will be managed to exceed state and local ordinance criteria for water quality, peak discharge rates, and runoff volumes.” Once again, we are told to just trust them. Everything will be done according to the law. But does that mean that it won’t harm the environment? The environment has been gravely harmed by development, and presumably most of that development was done within the law. We need some leadership by people willing to defend the resources that will sustain our grandchildren!

Groundwater, Lakes and Phosphorus

Rob Montgomery’s conclusion was that “placing consideration of the Northeast Neighborhood ‘on hold’ because of regional groundwater management concerns is not warranted. We suggest that an appropriate approach for the Planning Commission is to approve the neighborhood plan including an objective of maintaining groundwater recharge, and recommending appropriate municipal water supply conservation practices.” Translation: “Just write down that it would be good for people to save water and let rainwater infiltrate, and let us go about our business.”

It was encouraging to hear Commissioner Kinney ask Rob Montgomery how he could ensure that the water going in to Swan Creek would be both cleaner and of the same volume post-development. I hope that all the commissioners will be asking skeptical and probing questions, as they are responsible for the welfare of the entire community.

Some commissioners may think that the question of phosphorus has been laid to rest with City Engineer Paul Woodard’s calculations that post-development the NEN will contribute less phosphorus to surface waters than it presently does. While this may be true, (a schedule of corn, corn, and soy results in a lot of phosphorus runoff) it is not the relevant question to ask. Because Lake Waubesa is already partly eutrophic, a large reduction in phosphorus loading is needed, not a small one. Small scale, organic farming could be the best option of all for protecting and restoring Lake Waubesa, and it should be studied.

Workforce Housing and the Future of Fitchburg

Kudos to Alder Allen and Mayor Clauder for bringing up the issue of workforce housing. This is a huge need, but it won’t be met unless the city insists on it. Our proposal for the Northeast Neighborhood, which we will present to the Plan Commission in Feb., contains 30 units of workforce housing, for the farmers, teachers and entrepreneurs who will run the school of organic farming, the farmers market, and the Bike and Breakfast that we envision. The people who will be attracted to inhabit the NEN if our vision is realized will definitely be interested in and dedicated to saving water, infiltrating rainwater, stopping soil loss, rejecting pesticides, and creating a vibrant, closely knit community.

I hope that the Plan Commission and Common Council will remember that the choice before them is not between Mr. Sveum’s proposal and the worst possible development. The choice is between Mr. Sveum’s proposal, just leaving the land in agriculture, or endorsing our plan to preserve our lakes and groundwater while producing healthy food for the community.

Development Threatens Water Quality, Rural Character

Slightly revised version of Jan. 10, 2008 Letter to the Editor, Fitchburg Star
Submitted by Ed Korn, Fitchburg

Concerning the proposed development in the rural area of Fitchburg east of County MM and north of Lacy Road known as the Northeast Neighborhood. This parcel of undeveloped land abuts the Town of Dunn, a community that has worked hard to retain its rural characteristics.

As one example of the effort by the Town of Dunn to control the impact of development there was years ago an informal agreement between the Town chair and Fitchburg mayor that an undeveloped buffer would be left between Fitchburg and Dunn. The proposed Northeast Neighborhood completely ignores that agreement to the detriment of the kind of community Dunn is trying to maintain.

The shallow southern two thirds of Lake Waubesa is flushed and kept clean by three creeks which draw a significant quantity of their water from the Northeast Neighborhood. Changing the land use from agricultural to suburban will likely have a detrimental impact in those creeks and the already marginal water quality of Lake Waubesa.

Leap frog development which this is, is not appropriate land use. It's expensive to provide the municipal services of police, water, sewage, public transportation, and fire safety. Swan Creek is only fractionally built out let alone Green Tech Village. There is also a significant quantity of appropriate land closer to Fitchburg's central core that at this time is far better suited for urbanization. I think the quality of life of both the Fitchburg and Dunn residents would be better served if the Northeast Neighborhood retains its rural character.

'Green Plan' is Actually SPRAWL

Jan. 10, 2008 Letter to the Editor, Fitchburg Star
Submitted by Rosanne Lindsay, Fitchburg

Call it what you will, but the proposed Sveum development, on the outer edges of Northeast Fitchburg, is SPRAWL by any name, and raises more questions than it offers answers.

This plan may boast many things, including parks, rain gardens, native plantings, and filling a need to “provide houses in an area that reduces commuting distance” (for whom I might ask)? What it does not do is tell Fitchburg residents who care about increased taxes, what they will pay to provide services (water, sewer, fire, etc) to the NE area. Nor does it convey to those who care about protecting our natural resources, how these measures will be enforced.

The need for “greening” this plan was prompted by concerned citizens who believe that runoff pollution from this development will irreversibly degrade the native fauna and flora, creeks, springs, the Northern Pike Fishery, Lake Waubesa, and one of the highest quality and diverse wetlands in southern Wisconsin, only one mile from the site.

While Mr. Sveum’s effort to respond to citizen concerns was noted by some on the Plan Commission, discussion of specific measures by Sveum to address risks to the basic water chemistry and aquatic habitat conditions on pre-existing water bodies (Swan Creek, Lake Waubesa, Deep Spring), was lacking. These risks have been noted to be high and growing, according to Environmental Toxicologist, Dave Zaber (See 11/16/06 Star article).

Mr. Sveum’s consultant predicted that Swan Creek will not be adversely affected by development and that surface runoff will be cleaner than current conditions. However, he did not talk about accountability. In fact, Sveum et al. admitted that compliance with infiltration on individual lots cannot be enforced so how are we assured that groundwater recharge will be maintained or that runoff and the water bodies will remain clean?

There are accountability mechanisms which should be insisted upon: Sveum’s proposed Northeast Neighborhood, like his Harlan Hills, and Swan Creek developments contrast with the very rigorous accountability mechanisms that Bill Linton imposed in the Fitchburg Center. There, independent associations oversee the management and monitoring of compliance with covenants, much like the Natural Heritage Land trust does for PDR easements in the area.

In Harlan Hills, no additional funds will be provided to restore promised prairie land which is overwhelmed by clover. Mr. Sveum seeded and maintained the prairie for 2 years. Unfortunately, prairie restoration needs 3-5 years of maintenance to ensure proper generation of prairie plants, according to local experts. Promises of “no lawn pesticide application” (to protect the Arboretum) became “certain pesticides acceptable.” And even banned pesticides are sometimes applied because there is little, if any, ability to enforce.

As a result of the heavy rains last August, the Village of Oregon is faced with purchasing several flood-damaged homes, at least partly at taxpayer expense. The homes are downhill from Oregon's new Bergamont and Alpine Valley developments. Some have accused the developers of "design error" from poor stormwater management plans. Others say the developers are not to blame because they complied with the stormwater ordinance and other village requirements. Either way, there is little doubt that the developments exacerbated Oregon's pre-existing flood problems, as some residents had predicted.

These local histories prove that good intentions and inadequate city policies are simply not enough. Maintaining our precious environmental resources--the forests, prairies, wetlands, fisheries, and lakes that make living here so desirable--requires nothing less than full commitment to do whatever it takes to accomplish the goal, be it prairie restoration or preserving Swan Creek and the Lake Waubesa watershed.

Developers can talk all they want about "sustainability" and "green" development but they often fail to follow through. So it must be the city’s job to probe for specifics and examine concerns raised previously about the developer's Northeast Neighborhood Plan, including the suitability of the model being used for hydrological impacts, the absence of cumulative effects analysis, the preservation of rare hydric soils and infiltration, and the threats to our aquifer (groundwater) from a burgeoning population, as described by UW Ecologist Cal DeWitt.

Mr. Sveum also gave the rosy economic prediction that his thousand-home development will not cost the city money. But will Mr. Sveum give the city an enforceable guarantee as the country heads toward a recession? Or will Fitchburg taxpayers be the ones who bear the cost when his prediction proves incorrect? Virtually all Cost of Urban Service studies show that residential development leads to a net drain on local government budgets. What justifies Mr. Sveum’s belief that his Northeast Neighborhood development will be any different? What about reality of the nation’s economy; the shortage of credit to homebuyers resulting from the mortgage meltdown, the perceived need for more housing when many homes stand empty waiting for a buyer, or the fall of the dollar? City officials should require a full Cost of Urban Services Study for all new development proposals as a matter of fiscal responsibility.

The public policy question is one of deciding whether or not “market forces” should allow this sort of development at this location when it makes such a dramatic influence on the area’s natural and recreational resources, as well as contributes to commuter traffic and sprawl. The fact that there is the rail line and the Green Tech Village plan, both of which do far more for the City, is an important alternative that must be given more thought.

Proposed developments, in conjunction with past and present developments, are adversely affecting groundwater and surface water resources throughout Dane county and this problem is particularly acute in this part of Dane County. Let's hope that at future meetings of both the Plan Commission and the Common Council, the city will ask many probing, skeptical questions that will truly serve the interests of the many Fitchburg residents waiting for answers.

And while Mr. Sveum may, indeed, share many of our concerns, he may be the only one to see “green” if the Northeast Neighborhood turns into more Fitchburg SPRAWL.

Proposed Development is 'Green Washing'

Jan. 10, 2008 Letter to the Editor, Fitchburg Star
Submitted by Amy Schulz, Fitchburg

"Green" plans for N.E. Neighborhood really mean "green $" for developer

I just finished reading the article regarding the "new and improved" proposal for the N.E. Neighborhood. I'm glad that Sveum has tried to be responsive to the concerns of the citizens of Fitchburg but I'm afraid that his proposed solutions to our concerns are "green washing", in other words, they sound like they are good for the environment, but there are truly a lot of holes in the proposals.

For example, Sveum and Montgomery have plans to control runoff and methods to encourage infiltration, but if these are voluntary, it's likely that they won't be implemented. Sometimes developments promise to be kept free of pesticides (an example of voluntary proposals) but without any governmental teeth to enforce these types of promises, pesticides have been utilized.

Montgomery assured members of the commision that Swan Creek wouldn't be adversely affected by development but what about the issue of Lake Waubesa's water table being affected? Professor Cal DeWitt has done extensive research on the impact of development on Lake Waubesa and this wasn't even addressed.

I find the push for another development in rural Fitchburg to be short-sighted given the economic challenges of the recession that is in progress. There are plenty of homes on the market these days with depressed prices reflecting this recession. The new development in Oregon has plenty of vacant homes and the Swan Creek Neighborhood still has plenty of room as well. The small businesses close to downtown Fitchburg seem to be struggling, are more businesses what we truly need?

I hope that the planning commission will consider these points and NOT approve this development in light of these concerns.

Keep "Public" in Public Hearings

Phyllis Hasbrouck and Terry Carpenter discuss comments (some disturbing) made at the end of the Plan Commission meeting on 9/18/07 regarding the public input process.

Phyllis: Mark McNally started in again on what’s becoming a recurrent theme: that the public talks too much, and repeats themselves! He thinks they should be silenced after 150 seconds, no exceptions! Get an egg timer, and just cut them off!

Terry: He mentioned bringing in a gong not an egg timer. How appropriate for the all powerful commission.

Phyllis: Ed Kinney went him one better, and said, “It should be one minute! If they can’t say what they need to in one minute…” My notes fade out there: was it because he faded out, or he couldn’t express himself in one minute?

Terry: If Ed is serious, it would appear that he has no appreciation for the level of involvement and amount of research that some of the public bring to these meetings. I daresay that few topics can be covered in one minute or less.

Phyllis: Jim Anderson was absent, but at the Sept. 4 meeting, he complained about how much the public repeats themselves. If they start repeating, he said, they should be cut off! Next time, he said, let’s only let them talk about changes to the plan. If they say anything else, cut them off!

Terry: As the Plan Commissioners know all too well, repetition is sometimes needed to make a point when it has not been previously understood. For example, the commissioners have discussed whether or not schools should be considered as one of the guiding parameters to determine the Urban Growth Boundary. The Mayor repeats that “schools are huge.” Others follow along those lines. The Commission is divided on the subject. Thus, we end up hearing the very same discussion on many occasions. Does that mean that they didn’t need discuss the issue again on 9/18? Evidently not, because it was brought up for the umpteenth time and voted down for the umpteenth time through this decision to move the land use plan forward rather than waiting for a meeting with the superintendent of the Oregon School District as suggested by Mark McNally. (More details about this and the rest of the 9/18 Plan Commission meeting from an earlier blog are here.)

I was disappointed to hear one of the Commissioners say that he knew what some people were going to say before they opened their mouth. In some circles, this is known as “already, always listening” as in "I'm already listening for what you always say instead of for what you are saying." This leads nowhere. Perhaps this Commissioner (or others) could consider listening for something new in each comment and create the possibility of learning something. For example, why is this person upset or what facts are not being communicated to the public?

It makes no sense to limit public comments to only changes to the Neighborhood Plan. What if the earlier comments were not heard and not incorporated into the plan? Should we have just give up explaining that water is a finite resource because it was ignored the first few times it was mentioned and it doesn’t specifically address a change the plan? I don’t think so.

And how the heck would they implement these restrictions on civic participation? Who would keep track of what each person said before? Who would keep track of the list of changes that could be addressed?

Phyllis: The Mayor said that he does remind people to finish up, but Mark McNally told him “you’re too nice! You need to cut them off!”

Terry: This is one time that I partially agree with the Mayor. People should be allowed to speak. The city should be open to input from the public and I appreciate the Mayor’s interest in allowing it. But, clear standards need to be defined and implemented to make it fair for everyone. I’m as guilty as the next person of talking more than 3 minutes. But, when people are timed and interrupted (like me) and others are not (even when they talk for over 7 minutes), it is inconsistent and unfair.

Phyllis: Of course, under their new plan for limiting comments, all of these comments by commissioners and many more made at the same meeting, would have been inadmissible, because they were either repeating themselves, speaking off topic, or taking more than 1, 2 or even 3 minutes. Oh, I forgot, those rules are just for the public!

Terry and Phyllis: Dear Commissioners, we know that it can be tedious listening to the public. We know, because it can be tedious for us to listen to you at times. We are all human, and may repeat ourselves or even ramble on. But listening to people we’d rather silence is one of the prices of democracy. Because once you start getting into the business of setting criteria for who is allowed to speak (e.g. no repetition, only speak to changes in the plan) you have to consider, “how would I – or how will I like it when this is done to me?” It’s a slippery slope, and we never know when we might be in the party or faction that is out of power. And that’s why we all need to protect the rights of the public to fully participate. Remember, you might become a member of the public at some time in the future.

However, we also realize that the Commission is busy and your time is limited. Although some seem to suggest that (almost?) all comments from the public could and should be made through phone calls and email, this is not a good way to keep the public involved in the planning process. This might benefit those commissioners who faithfully answer the phone, return messages and read all their email. But, not only does this potentially limit information sharing with some commissioners who are less diligent but it also omits the entire public. Public meetings and especially public hearings, should benefit the public as well as the commissioners. We are there to hear each other’s concerns and that doesn’t happen when most things takes place behind closed doors or (email) windows. The public wants to learn from other residents. How can we do that if we are silenced or stifled?

The Mayor is right to tread lightly when asking people to finish up. Of course, he could be much more consistent, as we noticed that Phil Sveum spoke for over 7 min. on Sept. 4 without a word from the Mayor, while several WWPC people were reminded after 3 or 4 minutes. But in general the Mayor has managed to let everyone have their say at 3 minutes or a bit longer. Perhaps he is more attuned to just how mad people get when they are told that they cannot speak, because he needs their votes, and the Plan Commissioners don’t. Or maybe he’s just more polite.

The Mayor and others often bemoan the fact that more people don’t attend meetings and show they care. Wouldn’t it be smart to reward those who do care by listening to them for a whole 3 to 5 minutes or whatever time allotment is set, even if you find it tedious? People come to meetings because they care deeply about the topic at hand. Very often, their lives will be seriously impacted by what you are deciding. Whether you agree with them or not, in a democracy, your duty is to listen to them respectfully. Sounding a gong after 1 minute won’t do it.

Concerned Citizens:

We’ve reviewed a document presented by the planning department staff to the Commissioners listing options to discuss with regard to the public participation process for agenda items, non-agenda items and public hearings. Although many of the ideas are helpful, others are potentially restrictive. One troubling section includes “Fitchburg has been very generous in allowing persons to speak on any agenda item (and even non-agenda items), although that practice could end if the Commission so chose. The meeting has to be open to the public… but the only right to speak is when a public hearing is noticed.”

We recommend that all concerned citizens weigh in with the Plan Commissioners on this important topic (public participation) before the next Plan Commission meeting on 10/2 at 7:00 pm.

Politics and Planning

Submitted by Phyllis Hasbrouck

I must recommend Fitchburg Plan Commission meetings to FitchburgVoices readers. Though Terry Carpenter and I are sometimes the only people there who aren’t either elected officials or someone putting up a new deck or trying to get a liquor license, it isn’t as boring as you probably imagine. You really learn a lot: about the people who make decisions for you; about planning topics; and about politics.

This last meeting on Sept 18 was especially interesting.

There was high drama (for the connoisseur who knows how rare it is) when the Plan Commission voted 5 to 1 against Mayor Tom Clauder, to send the draft map for a 50-year Urban Growth Boundary on the Common Council. Sitting in the audience, knitting a purple scarf, I felt torn. On the one hand, I appreciated the Mayor referencing the West Waubesa Preservation Coalition’s statement of “We don't have to rush this.” The truth of that statement still stands: there is no rush in approving more development when there is a housing glut in Fitchburg, and water questions remain unanswered.

On the other hand, the comments of the other commissioners resonated much more strongly with me. In response to the Mayor’s plea to “Let the market do the growth,” John Freiburger answered very strongly, “If you want to see the market, go to Houston!” He painted a picture of unplanned growth gone wild, and said that real estate courses now point to Houston as an example of why zoning and planning are necessary.

Jay Allen agreed, saying that the problem with saying “Let the market decide” is that “you end up destroying wetlands,... creating problems with lakes and streams, you end up with fly ash dumps" and "all sorts of transportation problems.” He also indicated that he would like to make a plan to incorporate lower income housing into new neighborhoods, and to take a closer look at groundwater issues.

Ed Kinney defended the map as it stood, and said, “We put together a map that identifies the areas of Fitchburg that best meet those parameters." (Now I'm paraphrasing.) This map takes the politics out of the planning process.... We make it clear.... Of course, there are going to be changes to the map.... If you don’t want to be bothered by more proposals like Ballygrady, then vote for this plan. Otherwise, you open the door for politics.”

Al Cooper agreed that it was time to pass the plan on, as work expands to fill the time allotted.

And Mark McNally, though he was clearly uncomfortable abandoning the Mayor, seemed to be convinced by the other commissioners. When he asked for just 2 weeks delay to let the Mayor meet with the superintendent of the Oregon School District, John Freiburger said, “The Oregon School District cannot tell us how to plan. If we wait 2 weeks, in 2 weeks there will be another argument, and then another.”

In the end, they all voted yes except the Mayor, who said (I think) “With deep inner resolution, No.”

For me, it was a mixed bag. I totally agreed with the motivations expressed in favor of planning, and yet it was painful to see the Northeast Neighborhood (NEN) being included as part of the Urban Growth Boundary. I just have to take comfort in John Freiburger’s statement that “We’re showing the Northeast Neighborhood all in red, but we all know that we’re not going to develop it all.”

But there was one topic that I disagree with John on. He said that you can’t make plans for traffic until you’ve agreed on a map of where the development will take place. City Planner Tom Hovel concurred, saying, “Traffic studies don’t tell you ‘Don’t grow there.’ They tell you how to accommodate your traffic.”

I assume that he’s right in saying that (so far) traffic studies haven’t said, “Don’t grow there.” That probably has something to do with the mindset of traffic engineers, who can always envision a wider road, more on and off ramps, or a new frontage road. But maybe elected leaders should say “This traffic study indicates that we shouldn’t grow there,” if they see that the accommodation measures would violate certain values that the community holds dear.

Take, for example, the case of the Northeast Neighborhood. With only two possible routes into Madison, (the destination of choice for most of the tens of thousand of daily car trips that development will cause), the measures necessary to accommodate that traffic need to be looked at carefully before approving development.

At a meeting last summer with the Dept. of Transportation and Fitchburg officials, widening Hwy. MM to four lanes, or even six lanes, was discussed. They called it “improving” MM, but I wonder if the scores of people with houses on it would feel improved by having a highway in their front yard.

And the people who enjoy the Lussier Family Heritage Center, Lake Farm Park, the Capital Springs Centennial State Park and campground, or the Capital City Bike Trail, might like to know sooner rather than too late that Lake Farm Park Road will become clogged with traffic as people try to avoid the Hwy. 14 and Park Street jams caused by the NEN traffic.

Sure, a traffic engineer could tell you to improve traffic flow by making Lake Farm Park Road four lanes wide, but how does that mix with the quiet, rural experience that people seek when they go there? Of course, Fitchburg wouldn’t have to pay for that “improvement” or deal with the landowners who don’t want to move their houses, because it’s in the Town of Blooming Grove and the City of Madison. But, as Jay Allen has so rightly said, (in the case of the planned Grandview development on Fitchburg’s western border) it isn’t fair for one community to create a development that will pile transportation problems and costs on their neighbors.

If we talk about these clearly foreseeable traffic problems before approving a development, people have a chance to make their wishes known to Fitchburg alders and planners. And that’s what our system is all about: democracy – rule of the people. Hmmm… that reminds me of some very disturbing comments made at the end of this most interesting meeting. More on that later, so please stay tuned.

Thanks to all who read these words for taking the time to become informed. I hope to see you at the next Plan Commission or Common Council meeting!

Water, Water... Anywhere?

The word is out. Professor Cal DeWitt has sleuthed some amazing and disturbing facts out of the recesses of our aquifers. At Tuesday night’s Planning Commission meeting, he explained the relationship he discovered between Fitchburg’s deep-aquifer, high-capacity Well #10 (located on Granite Circle) and the 125-year-old, upper-aquifer, cased artesian Well #8 (located at Nevin Springs Fish Hatchery). It had been assumed that both wells were drawing from separate aquifers based on their depth profiles (800 feet or more for Well #10 and 180 feet for Well #8), and one mile distance from each other. However, Professor DeWitt found a significant correlation between them that changes the original assumptions.

Nevin Springs was producing 400 gallons of water per minute (gpm) for a number of years until late 2001 when it started dropping. It has since continued at a lower rate of 300-350 gpm. A mile away, Well #10 started pumping in 2001 and within a year was pumping around 600k gallons per day.

As shown in one of his graphs, a pattern appears when comparing the flow volume drawn by the new, municipal well and the decreased flow, about 12 months later, from the artesian well.

The bottom line? About 10% of the pumpage of Well #10 is equal to the losses at Well #8 that show up after a 12-month lag. So, there is a connection between these wells in the upper and lower aquifers and water is traveling at the rate of 14.5 feet per day from Nevin Springs in the direction of the Granite Circle well.

The fact that Professor DeWitt was able to find this relationship buried in the data from many area wells is surprising enough but I received another shock when he told us that we don’t really know how this happens. It appears that, at least sometimes, the upper and lower aquifers are indeed connected even though they separated by an aquitard (made of layers of sedimentary rock) which limits vertical waterflow except in cracks. To complicate matters, the horizontal flow between these two wells is 10s of thousands of times greater than the vertical rate of water flow through the aquitard, perhaps because of long horizontal pipes that formed over the years.

What does this mean? Professor DeWitt urges us to consider the entire groundwater hydrology system before we do something that would stop the flow of water to important springs and lakes in the area. For example, if we turn off Deep Spring and other groundwater resources that refresh Lake Waubesa, the entire southern boot (most of the lake) would die (eutrophy). And distance does indeed make a difference when dealing with solutions. The farther away we stay from precious water resources, the better chance we have to protect them. So, locating any new well in the vicinity of the NE Neighborhood is more of a threat to Lake Waubesa and the natural resources because of its impact on groundwater flow to the watershed.

Although this bombshell was dropped during the agenda item for the NE Neighborhood and Stormwater Plans, it also must be considered for all well drilling activity and increased water use (ie. development) in Fitchburg and beyond. If we fail to consider how new high-capacity wells will draw groundwater from the surrounding area, other springs or wells (including private wells) could dry up. This has happened with many of the famed springs of Waukesha and the Little Plover River in Stevens Point, among others.

[Side Track: According to Devil in the White City by Erik Larson (link here), one entrepreneur wanted to pipe water from a Waukesha spring on his property all the way to Chicago to supply the 1893 World’s Fair. But, Waukesha residents didn’t want the water to leave the city and they showed up with guns, knives and pitchforks to stop the pipeline workers, returning at 2 am with a cannon (!) to drive away them away again. For the rest of the story, see the Lake Lore article on page 4 of the Alliance for the Great Lakes newsletter here.]

Fast forward to Fitchburg 2007.

Professor DeWitt explained the concept and vital need for Groundwater and Watershed Budgets which he likened to other budgets. Simply put, we need to know how much we are depositing (infiltration) into each aquifer and withdrawing (wells and springs) from each aquifer to be sure that we don’t overdraw our account and live beyond our means. To protect against this, he suggests that the City of Fitchburg recommend to Dane County and CARPC (Capital Area Regional Planning Commission) that:

1. they place high priority on developing a policy for a Groundwater Budget for the region; and
2. they work with Fitchburg on procedures for monitoring and evaluating diminished well and spring flow to the city and region.

I am happy to report that, after the presentation, applause (normally against the rules at these meetings) was allowed to acknowledge Professor DeWitt’s efforts, and the Planning Commissioners wisely responded to these sobering data by asking for more information before making a decision about the NE Neighborhood. I’m not sure if they actually ordered a Groundwater Budget but I think that prospect is at least on the radar if not the table.

(NOTE: FACTv recorded the entire meeting including Professor DeWitt's presentation. So, you can contact them to have a DVD made of all or part of the meeting or to rebroadcast it during their Thursday morning request slot. If that doesn't work for you, drop me an email at fitchburgvoices@gmail.com to borrow my copy.)

The Trouble With Happiness

I’m finishing up the last chapters of “Stumbling on Happiness” by Daniel Gilbert (link here), an entertaining and thought-provoking book about how the mind works. What does the mystery of the mind have to do with Fitchburg? Plenty!

Gilbert explains that based on various studies “Starting points matter because we often end up close to where we started.” So, it was inevitable that after a maximum growth rate for Fitchburg of 75 acres per year was voted in, it would be seen as a target instead of a maximum. (Those of you who follow Council and Commission meetings may remember that I predicted this danger at the time. But admittedly, it was intuition not research that led me to that conclusion.) Every time I’ve heard it mentioned since then, the statement includes a comparison such as “we have enough land already identified in the Urban Service Area to last for X years at 75 acres per year.”

However, back on Feb. 20th, before this “maximum” was established, a presentation to the Planning Commission by city staff included the statement that, as of 2005, we had about 1,000 acres left to develop within the current Urban Service Area (USA) so we only need to add 250 acres from outside the USA to take us from 2005 to 2030. The assumption was based on a growth rate of, not 75, but 50 acres per year.

I don’t want to stray too far, but the February presentation also included an example of what would happen if we continue to develop at 100 acres per year which is close to the 104 acre average since 1990. The result when factoring in a “50% flexibility factor” is that by 2060, we’d use up roughly 10,000 of the remaining 11,000 acres that could be developed outside of the current Urban Service Area. If you aren’t alarmed, reread the last sentence! Let me put it another way. Under this scenario, all but a small portion of our entire 36 square mile city that isn’t preserved as a park or someone’s lawn could be covered with roads and roofs by 2060.

What if we want to protect more farmland and open space and “only” pave over 50 acres per year… or even 25 acres? Those amounts are still less than the maximum established (so they meet that criteria) but they are no longer even being considered as options at any of the meetings I’ve attended (and I haven’t missed many in the last six months). Was silencing all other discussions about Fitchburg’s rate of growth the intent of the 75 acre per year maximum or was it one of those unintended consequences?

This brings me back to the happiness problem. It turns out that it is quite difficult for us to predict what will make us happy in the future partly because, as Gilbert explains, “we use our present feelings as a starting point” and we “expect our future to feel a bit more like our present than it actually will.” So, when Steve or Hans or Phyllis describe a future with fewer car trips, we can’t imagine it since that’s not what most of us are currently experiencing.

Remember being warned that you should not grocery shop when you are hungry because you’ll buy things you don’t need? Similarly, we shouldn’t shop for Fitchburg’s Future with gasoline in our veins. It’s going to sway our judgment.

Instead, what if we used the gas shortages of the 1970s as our starting point when talking about the future of Fitchburg? (You may need to ask your parents or the all powerful Google about this if you are under 50.) How would being able to walk or bike to work, or the convenience of taking a commuter train or an express bus, compare with being stalled in traffic jams and waiting in line for hours every time you had to buy gas at ever increasing prices?

I contend that if you walked up to someone, who anticipated an hour or more wait to buy gas (like the picture below), and offered them an instant ticket on the Fitchburg Express (and a convenient way to get to the terminal), you could probably convert an unhappy driver into a happy passenger.

Line at gas station on Sept. 15, 1979 (from Wikipedia)

Another limitation of our brain, that affects our happiness, is described by Gilbert this way: It is “so much easier for me to remember the past than to generate new possibilities. I will tend to compare the present with the past even when I ought to be comparing it with the possible.” In this case, the past is not the 1970s but the more recent past. We have a hard time generating new possibilities going forward. This takes vision and requires a willingness to consciously remove some things from the table to make room for new ideas. By design, most of us are not gifted in this area. (More about this later.)

Our lack of vision also means that we often “fail to realize that our future selves won’t see the world the way we see it now.” I believe our inability to recognize that our future selves will be living in a different world, (with a different set of facts, and therefore a different set of values and beliefs), hinders our ability to make the changes necessary to create a better future.

It turns out that we are programmed to pay attention to the things we want to hear, to remember details that support our views, and to accept a lower standard of proof for facts with which we agree. While that seems like a rather immature way to act, it’s all in the name of happiness. In Chapter 8 - Paradise Glossed, Gilbert explains that people have a “Psychological Immune System that defends the mind against unhappiness in much the same way that the physical immune system defends the body against illness… A healthy psychological immune system strikes a balance that allows us to feel good enough to cope with our situations but bad enough to do something about it.”

Yes, there is trouble with happiness. We need to happily cope with today’s problems. But, let’s not let things get bad before we do something about them, because today’s solutions (including inaction) could create irreversible problems in the future. And that’s a place that we (or someone we love) must live.

Lindsay Questions Water Supply

Rosanne Lindsay's testimony from Aug. 7th Public Hearing:

[Most content from Letter to the Editor which appeared in the Fitchburg Star on Aug. 9, 2007.]

I’d like to talk about something that links all of us on the issue of Smart growth and growth boundaries, and that is the water.

The term water shortage has become a buzzword in Fitchburg this summer with two warnings from the city, including one mandatory warning, announcing water restrictions that limit yard sprinkling. Perhaps the water restrictions are due to increased growth in the area, or drought conditions, or both.

But as the city warns current residents to limit water usage on one hand, they are also moving to allow increased growth to our outlying rural corridor through the Urban Growth Boundary proposal. The approval of the Growth Boundary would pave the way for the approval of the NE Neighborhood development which would bring in thousands of new residents and hundreds of new businesses. It might also require siting a new municipal high-capacity well, diverting more water out of the ground.

Why would the city risk expanding our resident base, as sprawl, knowing that water shortages around the state are generating heated arguments about our current water supply?

For example, the city of Waukesha, known for overdevelopment and sprawl, still struggles to gain access to clean drinkable water even as they plan for new development (they drink radium-contaminated groundwater). Recently, a Waukesha developer and the utility proposed annexing Town property to sink two new heavy pumping wells near the 4600- acre Vernon Marsh Wildlife area to gain access to clean water for 200 new homes. But opponents to this plan convinced the Common Council to vote against it, saying they should halt new development so that they could live with their existing water resource.

Is this a novel idea whose time has come? Halt development and annexation in favor of conservation? More locally, the Village of Oregon Board and Planning Commission recently stopped annexing residential property due to concerns that the village has too many vacant residential lots.

I read, more often now, that developers are seeking to build closer to rural environmental corridors, wetlands, marshes and lakes, not only because they are often the only areas left to develop, but also because they are areas with a ready source of water.

The plan to chop up the open space of the Northeast neighborhood and cover it in asphalt is no different. But it doesn't have to happen. There are plenty of opportunities within Fitchburg's city core for infill development using existing wells that would lessen the impact on the flowage to Lake Waubesa's ecosystem. Further, why take away our access to highly fertile farmland, forest, and wetlands, surrounded by protected lands and parks that represent Fitchburg's unique rural, environmental corridor?

If current drought conditions should persist as a predictable summer occurrence then shouldn't we be cautiously planning our future growth to ensure that there will be enough water to sustain current residents? If future droughts continue to affect the levels of our area lakes, how will new high-powered wells for thousands of future residents from elsewhere help us to sustain our current water needs?

In considering the expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary, city planners and council members should explain how sprawl development would not sap city resources, spend more taxpayer dollars, and short our water supply in the process.

WWPC Looks for Win-Win Solutions

Testimony by Phyllis Hasbrouck, Chair of the West Waubesa Preservation Coalition, from Aug. 7th Public Hearing:

Good evening. The West Waubesa Preservation Coalition thinks it is great to have a long-term urban growth boundary, but we disagree with including the Northeast Neighborhood in the boundary, and with ignoring the needs of the farmers in Stoner Prairie. We do not want that, or any other good farmland developed, but something is missing from this plan, and that is some solutions for farmers who want to, or must, stay in farming.

We have spoken to farmers who have large debts, for modernization costs incurred at a time when they were inside a FUDA, and thus a great credit risk. They have no pension, and no other property besides the farm. Some of them have serious health issues, and they have to pay their own health insurance, which is one case is $1965 per month for a married couple! They want to retire, but their high debt load and proximity to urban development makes their farm and business less-than-desirable for others farmers to buy. If they are not allowed to sell to developers, but can’t find a farm buyer, they are trapped.

This is no way to treat the people who feed us! Some will say that they do not have a God-given right to be millionaires, and I agree with that. But they should not retire from decades of farming as paupers either. Every level of government should be working on ways to make farming a viable way of life, with retirement a possibility.

What could Fitchburg do? For the long term, it could set up a PDR program, so that farmers are relieved from development pressure, and so that its 50-year plan is not a joke that can be overturned every 2 years when new alders are elected. If a PDR program were adopted at the same time as a 50-year boundary, it would certainly lessen political opposition, since every landowner would have some form of compensation available.

And right now, even without a PDR program, it is possible for groups like the Natural Heritage Land Trust to purchase development rights, as long as they have a willing partner in the city government.

I see no reason why the Community Economic Development Authority of Fitchburg can’t make it their priority to assist agricultural businesses to come, stay, and prosper in Fitchburg. For instance, why not look for a solution to both the ATC problem and the manure problem, by creating a TIF to fund a cooperative methane digester that would create electricity for the city? Why not let farmers apply for low cost loans under the city’s umbrella? Could the city save Fitchburg farmers money by creating a health insurance pool for them?

What about reverse mortgages or recharge rights? These are possibilities that the CEDA could look into. There are so many things that the city could do, and the West Waubesa Preservation Coalition would be happy to help with research and organizing.

I suggest that if you want to have a minimum of controversy and political fallout from these momentous decisions, you take the time to come up with win-win solutions, where no one is left feeling like they totally lost. There is no hurry. In the east, there is no housing shortage that decrees that the Northeast Neighborhood Plan be quickly approved. Quite the contrary! Every day the stock market reels some more from the slump in housing and rise in foreclosures.

In the west, there is no need to rush through the Urban Growth Boundary that cuts people off from long-expected compensation without fashioning some alternative. Yes, the Comprehensive Plan is supposed to be done by 2010, but already some communities are applying for extensions. And a lot could be accomplished in two and a quarter years if CEDA and other government bodies made it their priority to explore what other cities have done, and to come up with proposals for Fitchburg.

Pourchot Hopes for Courageous Path

Caleb Pourchot's testimony from Aug. 7th Public Hearing:

Good Evening

The elephant in the room tonight that we, the citizens of Dane County, continue to ignore is the fact that we are using more water than is falling from the sky. Saving Stoner Prairie or southern Fitchburg, or even the Northeast Neighborhood for groundwater recharge may be completely irrelevant if we continue to exponentially increase the amount of water we pump out of the ground and send down to the Gulf of Mexico.

Developing around railroad corridors makes a lot of sense, but it ignores the fact that the groundwater underneath us is already tapped beyond its capacity to sustain us. The cones of depression in the deep water aquifer that have developed as a result of over 60 million gallons a day of water pumping have fundamentally changed the hydrology of our area to the point where our lakes are now feeding into our drinking water supply. To take a deep, hard look at this reality and its consequences requires courage and an abandonment of decades of economic dogma.

A dogma that assumes that future problems can be deferred as long as short term interests are fulfilled permeates our culture. Must we always be faced with imminent crisis before we act in our children’s best interest?

Perhaps the purpose of our municipal planning departments should be to re-design what we have in such a way that we can sustain the current population in health and happiness rather than encouraging double-digit growth and expediting our future water crisis.

To this end, as we talk about growth boundaries, we should be talking about the boundary that already exists– that is, the current Urban Services Area. We should also be talking about methods for permanently preserving the land outside that boundary that are fair and equitable to the land owners. Farmers must be preserved as well as farmland. The City should actively promote programs that allow farmers and other agricultural enterprises to innovate and thrive in the urban shadow where they will be perfectly situated to feed the local economy as well as the local population.

Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.”

These are challenging words, indeed. My hope, however, is that there will be a few among us who are courageous enough to confront the truth that stares us plainly in the face, and that they will lead us out of our old ways of thinking and blaze a new path toward a sustainable future for our children.

Thank you

Shape Future with Phil Lewis' Vision

Terry's Carpenter' testimony from Aug. 7th Public Hearing:

I would like to see a 50 year or permanent growth boundary and I believe that this process is not a prediction, as some have said, but an effort to shape the future. I want to pick up on Samuel’s comments. On page 138 of his presentation, Phil Lewis provides examples of his Diverse Density design (see below). This graphic shows high density, mixed-use development right along the rail line. Just below that, is the transition to Moderate density as you get farther away. Farming would be adjacent to the Moderate density area and then lastly, Nature.

On the graphic for page 137 (see below), Mr Lewis shows how this would work, from Greentech Village to the points east, including the NE Neighborhood. You can see the existing rail line running N and S parallel to Syene Rd and the existing E-Way, shown in green, creating a buffer of open space north of this entire area extending all the way from Fish Hatchery Rd on the left to Lussier Heritage Center on the right. There is also a large area of greenspace around Lacy Road at the bottom of the highlighted rectangle that represents Watershed Protection for Swan Creek.

Inside the highlighted rectangle, the leftmost reddish/orange box represents High Density along the rail to about ½ way between the tracks and Hwy 14. Moderate Density is shown as lighter orange and ends at Hwy MM on the east. The yellow area from MM to Larsen Rd shows food production and Fitchburg actually ends there but the map goes on to show the Town of Dunn with a large Natural area extending close to Lake Waubesa.

Although Mr Lewis’ vision is being used in the proposed UGB, for example by focusing on the rail corridor, it is being ignored with regard to the NE Neighborhood. His design shows that everything to the east of Highway MM should be Agriculture and therefore excluded from the UGB and I urge you to remove the NE Neighborhood to accomplish this vision.

I think Mr Lewis would agree that more information is needed to see what impact any development in this area would have on the wetlands, streams, lakes and aquifer. So, portions of the NE Neighborhood that are west of Hwy MM should be included for Moderate Density if and only if they can be shown to cause no threat to Lake Waubesa or its ecosystem.

Phasing is extremely important to the promotion of rail for mass transit. So, I also hope that you will not allow leapfrog development to skip over Greentech Village into the NEN.

Another difference between the current UGB and Mr Lewis’ design is that he excludes large portions from the N/S rail corridor for environmental buffers as you saw on the map on page 137. This is important to allow wildlife, wetlands and streams to flourish and I hope you will designate such environmental corridors to connect natural areas and farmland on the east and west sides of the rail line.

I applaud the emphasis on Mass Transit. And rail seems like the best tool for the long term if we want to reduce our carbon emissions and global warming. Although rapid bus transit might be an interum solution.

I also urge you to seek solutions that will not only protect farmland and other resources but will allow farmers to retire gracefully and help new people begin farming in the urban shadow. We need Purchase and/or Transfer of Development Rights and other programs to empower all farmers, including those whose families settled the Town of Fitchburg. We can’t ignore the fact that our decisions pit neighbor against neighbor as farms fall under different economic rules based on changes to the Growth Boundary. We need to protect farms and respect farmers.

I disagree with some who believe that we owe a profit to land speculators. But, I strongly believe that we owe a decent living and retirement to farmers after their decades of Debt, Sweat and Fears. I hope you will take this into consideration. Thank you

Cooke Explains the Depths of Frustration

Samuel Cooke's testimony from Aug. 7th Public Hearing :

I appreciate what you have to go through to set policy. It is not easy weighing all the issues and deciding what is important and what is not regarding land use. That being said, I have to say that I, and others, both here at the meeting and not here at the meeting, are getting very frustrated with what we see happening. Many of us prepare statements and come to the meetings, we write letters to the editor of the Star, for example, and spend lots of time preparing comments on the reports but the Northeast Neighborhood portion of the Urban Development Boundary Map remains exactly the same as when it was originally proposed.

So, I want to help you to fathom the depths of our frustration, such as when we see what the stated Planning vision is for Fitchburg and then we witness something different. Here is the first sentence of the Draft City of Fitchburg Vision Statement’s second paragraph:

Respectful of its past, its unique natural areas, and its agricultural heritage, Fitchburg’s government recognizes the values of the community - our citizens.

That is what this public hearing is all about. That is what previous public hearings have been about. Yet when large numbers of people consistently speak out about the very real dangers to our surface water and groundwater from widespread development in the Northeast Neighborhood the Urban Development Boundary Map remains completely unchanged.

To further illustrate the frustration, 76% of residents who responded to the 2005 survey the City turned out (76%!) were “…very supportive of policies that would maintain open- or green-space between Fitchburg and neighboring municipalities. 79% were very supportive of open- or green-space within the city. That’s right from the Fitchburg website.

Yet the Northeast Neighborhood representation on the Urban Development Boundary Map remains unchanged. There are a lot of very frustrated people as a result of this – we seem to not be listened to at all. How would that make you feel?

And as I, and others, have participate in this process, through attending and speaking at meetings, by spending hours and hours reviewing and commenting on the Ruekert Mielke Draft Stormwater Management report I, and others, watch as many other changes were made from the initial Draft Urban Development Boundary Map. Changes that appear to have originated, at least in part, from comments and interests voiced at past public hearings and meetings.

But not a single change to the Northeast Neighborhood part of the growth boundary has been made.

The other changes have added hundreds of acres of land that weren’t in the original draft map (Stoner Prairie area, McGaw Neighborhood and the huge area north & south of Irish Lane, east of Hwy 14). Hundreds and hundreds of acres added for development and not a single acre removed from the Northeast Neighborhood, despite it being the part of Fitchburg that is adjacent to Nine Springs Creek, the E-Way, Swan Creek watershed, Lake Waubesa wetlands, Big Fen, Deep Springs, organic farms and our immediate neighbors to the east who have invested millions in preserving what a vast majority of Fitchburg residents value also – open, green spaces.

Maybe we just need to come together on a common vision. Maybe we just need to all really listen to Professor Phil Lewis.

Terry Carpenter and I recently attended a presentation on Regional Design by retired Professor Phil Lewis. Professor Lewis is the “father” of the E-Way and has served as a consultant to Governors and other notables from Wisconsin. He has studied the entire region for about 50 years. His vision of a sustainable future includes a number of Wisconsin cities connected by passenger rail. As I’m sure the Planning Commission is aware, he has included Fitchburg in some very special regional plans as part of a Circle City design. Other regional communities have embraced Professor Lewis’ vision. This is an amazing opportunity for Fitchburg to be part of the work of a visionary and his vision includes the Northeast Neighborhood.

I urge the Planning Dept to find a way to share Phil Lewis’ vision with area residents because Phil Lewis’ vision is right in line with what I think the Plan Commission and the Council wants – increases in density where it makes sense, reliance on commuter rail and what the Plan Commission, Council and the people of Fitchburg say that they want – protection of open- and green-spaces.

We are a very polite group and I respect the Plan Commission and Planning staff but we are frustrated. Please listen to our consistent and thoughtful message by following Phil Lewis’ concept of preserving the Northeast Neighborhood east of Highway MM and get the area east of Highway MM out of the delineated growth boundary.